Hacker News Reader

Comment by caconym_ | Hacker News Reader

No kidding. I'm not an economist so my opinion on this isn't necessarily worth a lot but it seems pretty clear that it's more important for young people to be able to live financially stable lives near good job markets than it is for real estate to perform as a lucrative investment for those who are already well-off enough to own it. The former is clearly necessary for the future health of our society and economy; the latter seems easily replaceable: just invest in something else. Since we can't all live in the single most desirable place, it's always going to be a market in some sense, but I really believe that we could (and should) do a much better job making housing affordable than we do now.

View on HN

The biggest problem in most of these cities is current residents preventing new housing from being built. Most of these residents own property of their own and directly benefit from the higher prices that result.

Most of these residents are also old. It's literally the boomer generation fucking over everyone trying to move in for their own benefit.

The solution here is to build new communities. Find a place with no residents but within commute radius, and build up.

And ignore all the environmental bullcrap that existing home owners will try to astroturf. People won't hurt environment by gathering in one place that they did by spreading up.

The amount of capital required for that seems enormous. But a good idea.

That's the sort of capital banks will happily lend to you.

Not feasible in the San Francisco Bay Area. People are already commuting as far as Sacramento, because housing is more affordable out there. It's socio-economic repression.

The job growth is in knowledge, which benefits from being close by. For example, last week I walked from the office to Eventbrite to learn what they're doing. No way you're getting the same benefit from watching a video. To promote the best opportunities, we're going to have to reform our existing cities.

If you're trying to build a new community, it's going to require some other benefit. Like Peter Thiel and his seasteading.

Umm, CA 101 southeastward from San Jose? You can build a lot of apartment complexes 9 stores high on both sides of Caltrain, add more stations and trains, and here you go. You can also try building on inland hills. Look at Singapore or Haifa for an example how it can look like.

Yeah I'm sure if that was possible we would be doing it. The same NIMBY folks preventing more housing from being built also control the construction of new highways, public transport, and zoning regulations

Reply on news.ycombinator.com